United States v. Lamon, 893 F.3d 369

Aaron Lamon pleaded guilty to three counts: (1) possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)); and (3) felon-in-possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
At sentencing, parties disputed whether the § 841(a) drug count and the § 922(g) felon-in-possession count should be grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c) because one count is treated as an offense characteristic of the other.
This court’s decision in United States v. Sinclair, 770 F.3d 1148, holds that when a § 924(c) conviction is present, the § 841(a) and § 922(g) counts may not be grouped because the § 924(c) conviction precludes a firearm enhancement to the drug guideline.
The district court followed Sinclair, refused to group the counts, calculated higher combined offense levels, and imposed concurrent below-guidelines terms for the § 841(a) and § 922(g) counts plus the mandatory consecutive five-year sentence for § 924(c), for a total of 84 months’ imprisonment.
Lamon argued Sinclair was implicitly overruled by United States v. Cherry, 855 F.3d 813, or should be overturned to resolve circuit splits; the district court and this panel rejected those contentions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 841(a) and § 922(g) counts must be grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c) when a § 924(c) conviction is also present	Lamon: Cherry implicitly overruled Sinclair or Sinclair should be overturned; therefore counts must be grouped	Government: Sinclair remains controlling; § 924(c) exclusion of firearm enhancement prevents grouping	Court: Sinclair controls; counts are not groupable when § 924(c) conviction exists
Whether Cherry implicitly overruled Sinclair	Lamon: Cherry’s procedural history shows grouping consistent with guidelines, implying Sinclair was overruled	Government: Cherry did not address grouping or mention Sinclair; any contrary language is non-binding dicta	Court: Cherry did not decide the grouping issue; it did not overrule Sinclair
Whether this court should overrule Sinclair to resolve circuit split	Lamon: Overturn Sinclair to ensure uniform application across circuits	Government: Circuit precedent should stand absent compelling developments	Court: Circuit splits and disagreement are insufficient; no supervening developments justify overruling Sinclair
Whether sentencing consequences justify overruling precedent	Lamon: Sinclair yields long sentences in some cases and is wrong	Government: Disagreement with precedent isn’t a basis to overturn; stare decisis applies	Court: Mere adverse consequences and disagreement do not justify overturning Sinclair

United States v. Sinclair, 770 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding § 841 and § 922(g) counts are not groupable when accompanied by a § 924(c) conviction because § 924(c) precludes a firearm enhancement to the drug guideline)
United States v. Cherry, 855 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2017) (addressed sentencing issues but did not decide grouping under § 3D1.2 and thus did not overrule Sinclair)
Tate v. Showboat Marina Casino P’ship, 431 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (explaining that erroneous or nonessential variance from precedent in one opinion is not controlling in later cases)
United States v. Waters, 823 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 2016) (circuit split alone does not justify overturning precedent)
Santos v. United States, 461 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2006) (disfavors overruling precedent based on sentencing consequences; requires compelling reasons)
Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (recognizes that superseding changes in law may justify departing from precedent)